Potential Trades

[TwinsTerritory]

As the Twins wrap up a season of growth, much will be expected in 2016.  It's not like Terry Ryan to make big changes, but he has to at least look into a few potential trades.  Here is my attempt at figuring out who he is most likely to trade, teams that may have interest, and potential trades.  I'm sure most of you will disagree, so let me know what you'd do instead.  I have pretty thick skin, so feel free to rip these potential trades to pieces!!

 

1. Ricky Nolasco

Reasoning: This would obviously be a trade to dump the most disappointing free agent signing in Twins history.  In order to get rid of Nolasco, the Twins would have to take back a terrible contract or include prospects.  They may be better off eating the contract and releasing him if he can't pitch effectively next spring.  Maybe a NL team looking for starters would give Ricky another shot.

Trade Partners: Padres, Dodgers

Potential Trade: Nolasco, Plouffe, and Polanco to the Padres for Upton Jr., Norris, and Benoit

Very difficult to even come up with a logical proposal, but the Padres would probably want/need to include either Upton or Shields in any offer. The Padres get a left side of the infield, the Twins get a catcher and bullpen arm.

 

2. Trevor Plouffe

Reasoning: With Sano up and too young to be a DH only, the Twins will want him to play 100 games at 3B in 2016.  Plouffe's value may be as high as it will ever be.

Trade Partners: Red Sox, White Sox, Padres

Potential Trade: Plouffe to the Red Sox for Brock Holt, Deven Marrero, and Austin Rei

The Red Sox get a 3B as the move Sandoval to 1B.  The Twins get "All-Star" utility player Brock Holt who can play all over the field giving them some flexibility.  Marrero has seen his stock plummet, but he may still end up being a major league shortstop.  Rei gives the Twins more depth at the catcher position.

 

3. Brian Dozier

Reasoning: It's possible that Brian Dozier has hit his peak and his value may never be higher.  The Twins could consider trading him for the right package of players.

Trade Partners: Mets, Yankees, Royals

Potential Trade: Dozier, Polanco, and Kepler to the Mets for Matt Harvey, Kevin Plawecki, and Thomas Szapucki

I know this trade has a 0.001% chance of happening, but maybe the Mets are sick of drama and decide to trade from their starting pitching depth to get the young position players they need.  The Twins get their ace, a top young catcher, and a 19-year-old lefty with some upside.  (I know this leaves the Twins super thin up the middle, but if they did this they could sign a guy like Zobrist or Daniel Murphy to fill the whole for a couple years)

 

4. Kyle Gibson

Reasoning: Gibson has shown growth, but he soon turns 28 and will probably never be better than a #4 starter on a good team.  If the Twins can't get rid of Nolasco, Santana, or Hughes and they need to make room for Duffey and Berrios, Gibson could be good trade bait.

Trade Partners: 1/2 the league could probably use Gibson as a #4 starter at the right price

Potential Trade: Gibson to the Yankees for Gary Sanchez and Domingo Acevedo

Behind Tanaka, the Yankees have a lot of question marks.  Sanchez is blocked by McCann for the foreseeable future and Sanchez has lost some of his luster as a prospect.  Maybe the Twins can get Sanchez to care about defense and he can platoon with Suzuki in 2016.  Acevedo is a huge (literally, he's 6'7" 240) wild card that may never figure it out, but could be dominate if he does. 

 

 

 

 

[nytwinsfan]

A lot of people may rip on these trades, but the poster clearly put some careful thought into them, and they all seem within the realm of reason. Nice job. These are more likely to happen than the usual ridiculous stuff that people post sometimes, although just as any specific trade is not that likely to happen, so are these. But they are more likely to happen than many others.

[sane]

 

Potential Trade: Dozier, Polanco, and Kepler to the Mets for Matt Harvey, Kevin Plawecki, and Thomas Szapucki

I know this trade has a 0.001% chance of happening,

 

IMO, you are WAY over-optimistic with the 0.001% chance! But if Larry the Cable Guy become the Mets GM and he say OK, RUN WITH IT!! But first plead guilty of larceny in order to get your sentence reduced.

[TwinsTerritory]

 

IMO, you are WAY over-optimistic with the 0.001% chance!  But if Larry the Cable Guy become the Mets GM and he say OK, RUN WITH IT!! But first plead guilty of larceny in order tot your sentence reduced.

Fair enough!  Would the Mets consider DeGrom or Syndergaard instead?  In my mind they're all #1 starters and I'd package Dozier for any of the three.

[sane]

 

Fair enough!  Would the Mets consider DeGrom or Syndergaard instead?  In my mind they're all #1 starters and I'd package Dozier for any of the three.

Maybe with more in the Dozier package. Big time pitchers are worth more than a .250 hitting second baseman, and two AA prospects. Plus the Mets are by NO means in a rebuilding mode, so they probably wouldn't give up good starting pitchers for prospects.

[Rosterman]

I wouldn't trade both Dozier and Polanco at this point. And, yes, agree that Dozier may be at his highest value to a potential trade partner. But he still wouldn't be most trade aprtner's first choice.

 

Plouffe will draw tire kickers, and Ryan will throw his name out there for some unrealistic returns to fulfill Twins needs. But the Twins are at a disadvantage at the moment. Teams know Plouffe should be available, and the Twins will want to move him for someone between now and the end of next season. They know if the Twins choose to play Sano at third, then Plouffe is without a home.

 

ibson could be apckaged nicely with Plouffe or Dozier to a high end prospect catcher and...someone. That might be the best deals for any of the three above, who are probably the Twins msot valuable tradechips.

 

The Twins also have some outfield depth and could deal Rosario, Hicks or find a taker for Arcia. But they would purely be dealing future promise rather than bonafide results. I like the current depth of Rosario, Hicks, Arcia and Buxton with Kepler and Walker in the wings and possibly making a decision to move someone come 2017, but not 2016.

 

The best bet for Noalsco is that he pitches brilliantly and someone takes him off our hands at the trade deadline (and Milone could be a factor then, too, as he'll be too expensive to bring back AFTER next season. But the further evelopment or usage of May and Meyer will determine moves of that sort.

 

Jepsen has value. Perkins has flattened out, but will always have value as a set-up lefty if he doesn't return to closer status...but not until he pitches a full season pain free again.

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

My prediction is that the biggest trade of the offseason will be one of Gibson or Milone getting moved. Each flashed enough dominant starts this season that someone will buy one of them as a mid-rotation starter with some upside.

 

In general, starting pitching depth obviously has helped the team this year but this is a time to move a bit of that depth.

 

I think Nolasco is unmovable until he has a stretch of both good health and decent pitching. My guess is that he doesn't last the year with the team regardless, but I imagine him breaking camp as a starter, getting together just enough trade value if he pitches well, and the Twins being ready to DFA him at mid-season if it doesn't work out. They'll be more than halfway through the contract at that point.

 

Plouffe's will be an interesting situation to watch. There are decent arguments for trading him or not trading him, but one telling thing is how little Sano played at 3B, despite being in the majors about half the season. I don't disagree that he's too young and valuable to be only a DH, but it seems like the Twins may not be ready to declare him a full-time 3B yet either.

[glunn]

I worry about Sano being able to stay healthy, especially at third base.  Maybe it makes sense to keep Plouffe and have him platoon with Sano and third and with Mauer at first, at least until Sano can show that he can stay healthy.

[dougkoebernick]

Great post - good thoughts. There is something to be said about sticking with Sano at DH and keeping Plouffe. Or maybe even more importantly, for Ryan and Molitor to talk about how that is the way they are going to go. However, if they really feel like Sano can play 3B and they feel comfortable with Vargas or someone else filling the DH position, they can still say that but then they won't look so desperate when it comes to moving Plouffe.

 

As far as Dozier, I still think you keep him because if the guy can ever figure out to even come close to his first half production in the second half you are looking at an incredibly valuable guy. I think that there is a good chance he figures out how to do that.

 

With all that said, it may be time to deal some young guys and I really think that Hicks will be on the block if they feel like Buxton can start the season in CF. 

[DaveW]

Harvey would cost at the very least Buxton and another huge asset. We aren't landing him

[diehardtwinsfan]

Problem with Nolasco is he's essentially negative value in a trade right now.  I'd love to see him out of here, but reality is that they are probably stuck with him for another season.  I could definitely see the Twins parting ways with Gibson, and I think Gibson would command quite a bit in the trade market. 

 

I think trading Dozier is a bad idea.  Yeah, his value isn't higher than it's going to be, but there isn't a replacement in house that will come close to his production.  This isn't a sell high situation. This is a ride the wave situation.  Plouffe, on the other hand, better fits the sell high situation.  He's above average, so he would have value to a contending team needing a 3B.  We have a replacement who will likely out perform him. 

 

I'm not quite sure on names just yet, but I would market 3 guys:

 

Milone for a very good reliever.

Plouffe for a starting catcher and/or prospects.

Gibson for a starting catcher and/or prospects.

 

 

[Poli_Crandall]

You're trades have potential and I think you did a very good job in identifying teams that would be fit the player to be traded.  I agree that if a trade to the Mets would go down the pitcher coming back would be Harvery or Wheeler.  The rest of that pitching core is untouchable.  Harvey has worn out his welcome and has made it very clear he will not discuss extension talks (being a Boras client).  Of all the trades I think that to be the most reasonable if we believe we have a shot next year or the year after.  Something along the lines of getting Plawecki and Harvey would be a good get.  

 

Now the price would be huge though and would require a position of need for the Mets, CF.  John Manuel of BA tweeted last night that Scouts have been raving about Kepler and see his potential as an equal to that of Buxton's (he explained mainly that it has much to do with how Kepler has risen and not because Buxton has lost value).  A deal revolving around Kepler (who's natural position is CF which Kieth Law pointed out) would make this work.  Naturally there would have to be more pieces going the Mets way but that would make the discussion interesting.  

 

[spinowner]

I've said before that while talking specific trades here may be fun it's nowhere near what actually happens when GM's negotiate. Anyone can be traded if TR feels it will improve the organization and if the GM on the other end feels it will improve his organization. Teams trade from an area of surplus to fill an area of need and it's usually difficult to match that with another team. Plus, you have to give up good talent to get good talent. Giving up 5 mediocre players will not get you one superstar.

In general terms I think Plouffe is the best trading chip we have. I'm hesitant to trade starting pitching because of everything that can happen during the course of a season.

[nytwinsfan]

 

I've said before that while talking specific trades here may be fun it's nowhere near what actually happens when GM's negotiate. Anyone can be traded if TR feels it will improve the organization and if the GM on the other end feels it will improve his organization. Teams trade from an area of surplus to fill an area of need and it's usually difficult to match that with another team. Plus, you have to give up good talent to get good talent. Giving up 5 mediocre players will not get you one superstar.

Ok, I admit I can't speak for everyone here, but I come to Twins Daily to read careful, thoughtful, and specific analysis of baseball, not obviously true axioms of General Managing 101 that I assume we all already know and accept. TwinsTerritory made a very careful, thoughtful analysis of some potential trades that could feasibly happen. I'm sure he of course realizes the odds of any specific trade happening are slim, and of course he realizes he doesn't have a psychic connection to Terry Ryan's brain. But at least he put himself out there and took a shot.  And frankly, he did a pretty good job of it. That's the kind of writing that makes me come to Twins Daily. Criticizing him and insinuating he does not understand borderline tautological premises of baseball transactions is neither fair to him, nor contributing anything interesting to the conversation.  I realize that my comment here is a little mean, and I will understand if moderators tell me to tone it down, but this criticism of the post seems entirely gratuitous, unfair, and frankly, devoid of substance. It does a disservice to the discussion here.

[sane]

 

"I think trading Dozier is a bad idea.  Yeah, his value isn't higher than it's going to be, but there isn't a replacement in house that will come close to his production".

 

An outside-the-box replacement for Dozier would be Rosario who was being converted to a second-baseman, until the Twins determined that his promotion possibilities at 2B would be blocked by Dozier. 

That would open up a spot for in the OF for  Kepler, Adam Brett Walker, Arcia or Torii.

 

[DocBauer]

Some well thought out options.

 

Nolasco is the only one I'm really buying though. Or is it selling? With his previous track record, and a clean bill of health, I believe he will have value to someone needing depth in their rotation, as long as the Twins pick up half his remaining two seasons, and possibly/probably toss in someone else. With his past considered, I'd say a NL team may be the best option. The Dodgers may indeed be a solid option.

 

I believe the return, at best, would be a quality bullpen arm. More than likely it would be a prospect. But the key would be freeing up the SP logjam and freeing up additional money for an addition; say a FA arm for the pen?

[nytwinsfan]

 

I think trading Dozier is a bad idea.  Yeah, his value isn't higher than it's going to be, but there isn't a replacement in house that will come close to his production.  This isn't a sell high situation. This is a ride the wave situation.  Plouffe, on the other hand, better fits the sell high situation.  He's above average, so he would have value to a contending team needing a 3B.  We have a replacement who will likely out perform him.

Polanco? Sure, his power will be less, but he has the potential for higher Avg. and probably OBP too.  Also, his defense is pretty solid at 2B. His only weakness on D is his arm, which won't matter much at 2B.  All of that being said, I wouldn't trade Dozier unless someone really knocked my socks off with an offer (i.e., like the Harvey deal mentioned above). While Polanco has the potential to be as good as Dozier, I'd want to see how he does a bit more at the major league level before I would depend on it.

[spinowner]

 

Ok, I admit I can't speak for everyone here, but I come to Twins Daily to read careful, thoughtful, and specific analysis of baseball, not obviously true axioms of General Managing 101 that I assume we all already know and accept. TwinsTerritory made a very careful, thoughtful analysis of some potential trades that could feasibly happen. I'm sure he of course realizes the odds of any specific trade happening are slim, and of course he realizes he doesn't have a psychic connection to Terry Ryan's brain. But at least he put himself out there and took a shot.  And frankly, he did a pretty good job of it. That's the kind of writing that makes me come to Twins Daily. Criticizing him and insinuating he does not understand borderline tautological premises of baseball transactions is neither fair to him, nor contributing anything interesting to the conversation.  I realize that my comment here is a little mean, and I will understand if moderators tell me to tone it down, but this criticism of the post seems entirely gratuitous, unfair, and frankly, devoid of substance. It does a disservice to the discussion here.

As you will see if you re-read my comment I did not reference any specific post or contibutor. My comment was intended as a general comment and was not directed at any one person. I apologize if it was not written clearly enough in that way but your inferences are inaccurate.

[DaveW]

 

Ok, I admit I can't speak for everyone here, but I come to Twins Daily to read careful, thoughtful, and specific analysis of baseball, not obviously true axioms of General Managing 101 that I assume we all already know and accept. TwinsTerritory made a very careful, thoughtful analysis of some potential trades that could feasibly happen. I'm sure he of course realizes the odds of any specific trade happening are slim, and of course he realizes he doesn't have a psychic connection to Terry Ryan's brain. But at least he put himself out there and took a shot.  And frankly, he did a pretty good job of it. That's the kind of writing that makes me come to Twins Daily. Criticizing him and insinuating he does not understand borderline tautological premises of baseball transactions is neither fair to him, nor contributing anything interesting to the conversation.  I realize that my comment here is a little mean, and I will understand if moderators tell me to tone it down, but this criticism of the post seems entirely gratuitous, unfair, and frankly, devoid of substance. It does a disservice to the discussion here.

Dude, nobody is bashing him or criticizing him. This is the 2nd post in this thread were you are going out of your way to create an issue out of nothing.  If you think someone crossed the line, then message a mod, nobody insinuated anything.

[DaveW]

 

 

 agree that if a trade to the Mets would go down the pitcher coming back would be Harvery or Wheeler.  The rest of that pitching core is untouchable.  Harvey has worn out his welcome and has made it very clear he will not discuss extension talks (being a Boras client).

 

 

I'm not sure where this "Harvey has worn out his welcome" bit has come from, but living in NY I can tell you this isn't the case at all, the "drama" has been limited and the Mets found a way to limit his innings towards the end of the regular season. Harvey is 26 years old, is under team control until 2019, boasts a 9.5 k/9 2.0 bb/9 rate and a lifetime 2.53 ERA. Besides a very select few (Trout, Harper, Lindor etc) Harvey has some of the highest trade value in all of baseball.

 

The Mets likely won't be shopping him at all anytime in the next two years, and if they were to shop him now, it would take a package of at least one of Buxton/Sano+Kepler+Berrios type.

I would give up Buxton and Kepler for Harvey in a heartbeat FWIW, but it won't happen.

[sane]

 

As you will see if you re-read my comment I did not reference any specific post or contibutor. My comment was intended as a general comment and was not directed at any one person. I apologize if it was not written clearly enough in that way but your inferences are inaccurate.

I agree.

Adding the usual caveats to the fantasy trading game is just a reminder of the fantasy-reality gap.

IMO, no harm, no foul.

[Mike Sixel]

I'd consider giving up Buxton for Harvey, but only if they are convinced Kepler is the real deal. I wouldn't like watching Buxton play elite CF defense for NY, but it would be great to have a legit Ace type here. I don't think Harvey is being dealt.

 

I think the original proposal might also be fair, but I'm not sure. All of those specific deals look like they could be real trades.

[nytwinsfan]

 

As you will see if you re-read my comment I did not reference any specific post or contibutor. My comment was intended as a general comment and was not directed at any one person. I apologize if it was not written clearly enough in that way but your inferences are inaccurate.

Well, if you post a comment that is critical about posts of a certain category (e.g., specific-trade posts) in a post that falls within that category, it is more than reasonable to interpret that comment as being critical of the post, even if it is written in "general" terms (i.e., regardless of whether you also meant it to apply to other posts about specific trades). If you didn't mean it to apply to this post specifically, you would have started out by saying something like, "Although I think this post is good and valuable for reasons A and B," OR "Although it might not apply to this specific post," . . . "generally I think [specific-trade posts are bad for reasons X and Y]." Otherwise the reasonable (indeed the only reasonable) inference is that it applies to this post too.

 

If you say that your comment was not intended at all as a criticism of this post, then despite finding that hard to believe I guess I'll have to take your word for it, but in context it seemed like a pretty straightforward criticism of it to me.

 

Also, nothing wrong with criticizing someone's post (lord knows I certainly do that sometimes). I just thought your criticism (which wasn't even a criticism, apparently), wasn't fair or helpful.

 

Dude, nobody is bashing him or criticizing him. This is the 2nd post in this thread were you are going out of your way to create an issue out of nothing.  If you think someone crossed the line, then message a mod, nobody insinuated anything.

 

I don't think he "crossed the line." I just think his post was unfair to the author and detracting from the conversation.

[Loosey]

A trade I can see happening this off season is Arcia being dealt.  I doubt he will be a hot commodity but if they Twins have no intentions of rostering him this year, he will be picked up by someone for nothing.  I don't have other team's prospects readily available to discuss, but I could see a team needing some RF pop such as Baltimore giving up a AA reliever like Mychal Givens or Andrew Triggs if they are desperate for more power than they received from their RF/DH platoon this year.

[Siehbiscuit]

I'm not a fan of moving Gibson. Santana is our best pitcher, but Gibson is our 2nd best. Duffy looked great, but teams haven't made adjustments yet, they will. Nolasco isn't dead weight and should be a dump, Plouffe makes the most sense to move for a prospect with promise (Ryan likes to target low to hi A-ball guys).

[howieramone2]

 

I'm not a fan of moving Gibson. Santana is our best pitcher, but Gibson is our 2nd best. Duffy looked great, but teams haven't made adjustments yet, they will. Nolasco isn't dead weight and should be a dump, Plouffe makes the most sense to move for a prospect with promise (Ryan likes to target low to hi A-ball guys).

I agree on Gibson. He's a solid 3, can pitch a playoff game, and I believe has more ceiling to show.

[DaveW]

 

I agree on Gibson. He's a solid 3, can pitch a playoff game, and I believe has more ceiling to show.

Gibson turns 28 in a couple weeks, I'm not sure I agree with him having more ceiling to show. His career ERA, IP and FIP suggest he is closer to a 4/5 then a 3.

[DaveW]

 

 

I'm not a fan of moving Gibson. Santana is our best pitcher, but Gibson is our 2nd best. Duffy looked great, but teams haven't made adjustments yet, they will. Nolasco isn't dead weight and should be a dump, Plouffe makes the most sense to move for a prospect with promise (Ryan likes to target low to hi A-ball guys).

Duffey's curve ball is legit, there aren't that many adjustments one can make on him. He also has a very solid and consitent minor league track record and is only 24, which still puts him a couple years away from his prime. Heading into 2016 with no changes: I think Santana is our top pitcher, Duffey number 2, Berrios number 3, May 4, Gibson 5, Hughes 6, Milone 7, Nolasco 8.

 

Berrios won't be up for a minute, but I already have him ahead of Hughes, Gibby, Milone etc.

 

This is why I think Gibson and Milone should be shopped aggressively. (Nolaco and Hughes would take us eating a big part of the contract)

[Physics Guy]

 

Duffey's curve ball is legit, there aren't that many adjustments one can make on him. He also has a very solid and consitent minor league track record and is only 24, which still puts him a couple years away from his prime. Heading into 2016 with no changes: I think Santana is our top pitcher, Duffey number 2, Berrios number 3, May 4, Gibson 5, Hughes 6, Milone 7, Nolasco 8.

 

Berrios won't be up for a minute, but I already have him ahead of Hughes, Gibby, Milone etc.

 

This is why I think Gibson and Milone should be shopped aggressively. (Nolaco and Hughes would take us eating a big part of the contract)

You are forgetting about the even-year Phil Hughes.    He should be back to #1 on the staff next year.

Age 24 - 2010:    18W-8L, 4.19 ERA

Age 25 - 2011:     5-5, 5.79 ERA

Age 26 - 2012:    16-13, 4.19 ERA

Age 27 - 2013:    4-14, 5.19 ERA

Age 28 - 2014:    16-10, 3.52 ERA

Age 29 - 2015:    11-9, 4.40 ERA

 

He's trending in the right direction, even on the odd years.    18-10 with a 3.20 ERA next year?    I can dream, can't I?

 

 

[DaveW]

 

You are forgetting about the even-year Phil Hughes.    He should be back to #1 on the staff next year.

Age 24 - 2010:    18W-8L, 4.19 ERA

Age 25 - 2011:     5-5, 5.79 ERA

Age 26 - 2012:    16-13, 4.19 ERA

Age 27 - 2013:    4-14, 5.19 ERA

Age 28 - 2014:    16-10, 3.52 ERA

Age 29 - 2015:    11-9, 4.40 ERA

 

He's trending in the right direction, even on the odd years.    18-10 with a 3.20 ERA next year?    I can dream, can't I?

I actually like Hughes a lot as a bounceback guy. If healthy he becomes another nice piece.